On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 7:23 AM Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> INT64_C() returns a 'LL'-suffixed constant on OpenBSD, and int64_t
> is indeed a 'long long':
>
*That's* what I've been missing, thanks! BSD is wrong. It should have been
using the "fastest" shortest-int that represented 64-bits, but
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:55:27AM +, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:45 AM Yann Ylavic wrote:
> > Both apr_time_t and apr_interval_time_t are (apr_)int64_t, which is
> > probably format "%lld" on OpenBSD, so we'd need to determine
> > APR_INT64_T (and all of our numeric _FMT)
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 09:45:38AM +, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Both apr_time_t and apr_interval_time_t are (apr_)int64_t, which is
> probably format "%lld" on OpenBSD, so we'd need to determine
> APR_INT64_T (and all of our numeric _FMT) with
> APR_CHECK_TYPES_FMT_COMPATIBLE too.
Yes, I agree.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:45 AM Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:24 AM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> >
> > On 03/20/2019 11:00 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:30:09PM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> > >> According to my observations, apr_time_t should
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:24 AM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> On 03/20/2019 11:00 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:30:09PM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> >> According to my observations, apr_time_t should match the APR_TIME_T_FMT
> >> token in every case. Please inspect
On 03/20/2019 11:00 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:30:09PM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>> According to my observations, apr_time_t should match the APR_TIME_T_FMT
>> token in every case. Please inspect that line of httpd code to see how some
>> non-apr_time_t value
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:30:09PM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> According to my observations, apr_time_t should match the APR_TIME_T_FMT
> token in every case. Please inspect that line of httpd code to see how some
> non-apr_time_t value was passed in APR_TIME_T_FMT formatting.
Indeed, this
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:35 PM Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 02:09:51PM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> > I find no errors in our APR_TIME -> APR_INT64 determination, and
> > made no such changes.
> >
> > But I note httpd 2.4.x commit r1824504 by Yann made a correction in
>
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 02:09:51PM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> I find no errors in our APR_TIME -> APR_INT64 determination, and
> made no such changes.
>
> But I note httpd 2.4.x commit r1824504 by Yann made a correction in
> this sphere. Are you testing the current code or an old 2.4
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:18 AM Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I don't believe your diff attempts to address this, but I am stilling
> seeing a problem with APR_TIME_T_FMT when compiling httpd:
>
> proxy_util.c:3179: warning: format '%ld' expects type 'long int', but
> argument 9 has type 'long long
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 05:09:40PM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> please test the attached, it works for me on Fedora, but need to verify at
> least BSD, Solaris, etc. mingw remains special-case so it shouldn't be
> affected. This should force off_t_fmt to "ldd" in the cases
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:09 PM William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>
> please test the attached, it works for me on Fedora, but need to verify at
> least BSD, Solaris, etc. mingw remains special-case so it shouldn't be
> affected. This should force off_t_fmt to "ldd" in the cases Stefan observed.
>
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
